parshat b’shalach is an exciting parsha; it€™shalah-5.pdf · departure of bnei yisrael from...
Post on 16-Jul-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
B’Shalah
1
Parshat B’Shalach is an exciting parsha; it
possess riveting drama, compelling dialogue, and
wonderous events. It details the final stage of the
departure of bnei Yisrael from Egypt as they enter
the wilderness and approach the Sea of Reeds just as
Pharaoh – who has had a “change of heart” –
pursues them with “six hundred of his picked
chariots” (14:7). God and Moses unite forces to split
the sea and then restore it, annihilating the Egyptian
army. Once on the other side of the Sea, bnei Yisrael
B’Shalah
2
exhibits the behavior that will become commonplace
during their near forty year sojourn in the desert.
That behavior is encapsulated by one word –
“grumbling,” or in Hebrew נו This word will .וי
recur throughout the parsha and appear in future
parshiot as well. The grumbling is not, however, the
focus of what I’d like to talk about today. A more
preeminent theme emerges in parshat Beshalah that
is more significant than grumbling. It is more
significant because it exhibits itself among the
B’Shalah
3
Israelites and the Egyptians. It appears to be a
characteristic that the two peoples share in common.
Furthermore, the theme I am about to identify gains
resolution at the end of the parsha, which signifies
to me that it is the true subject of this section of the
Torah.
This theme revolves around a couple of related
human habits: forgetting, memory, nostalgia,
phantasmagoric wish-fulfillment, trauma, and
horror-fantasy. As I take you through the examples,
B’Shalah
4
my point will become clearer. The verses that I will
touch upon are:, 14:11, 16:2-3, and 17:2-3.
First, I bring before you 14:11. The Israelites say to
Moses,
“Was it for want of graves in Egypt that you brought us to die in the wilderness? What have you done to us, taking us out of Egypt? Is this not the very thing we told you in Egypt, saying, ‘Let us be, and we will serve the Egyptians, for it is better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the wilderness’?”
You really have to pause when you read this verse,
and you can’t listen to closely to it since it will recur
in one form or another throughout the remainder of
B’Shalah
5
the Torah. The Israelites yearn for Egypt. They
explicitly state that they prefer slavery in Egypt. On
one level this makes sense since the only alternative
they to slavery in Egypt is death in the wilderness.
Surely, life – even a life of bondage – is preferable
to death. Once again, perhaps you might think a
statement like this makes sense since it is uttered
before Israel crosses through the Sea of Reeds on
dry land. Yet, they utter nearly identical words after
they have reached the other side in safety, seen the
B’Shalah
6
Egyptians dead on the shore, and sung to God in
praise for delivering them and defeating the
Egyptian army. 16:2-3 states:
“In the wilderness, the whole Israelite community grumbled against Moses and Aaron. The Israelites said to them, ‘If only we had died by the hand of the LORD in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the fleshpots, when we ate our fill of bread! For you have brought us out into this wilderness to starve this whole congregation to death.’”
The same fear expresses itself here: death in the
wilderness. The description of that death and of the
slavery they mention is more detailed, more vivid.
Their death will be one of starvation. The memory of
B’Shalah
7
slavery now includes the abundance of food they
enjoyed – fleshpots, ample bread – in spite of their
bondage. Most shocking, they imagine that their
death in Egypt would have been by “the hand of the
Lord” rather than their actual persecutor. The parsha
contains a third example of bnei Yisrael’s perplexing
recollection of their life in Egypt and their fear
fantasy about dying in the wilderness.
“The people quarreled with Moses. ‘Give us water to drink,”’ they said; and Moses replied to them, ‘Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you try the LORD?’ But the people thirsted there for
B’Shalah
8
water; and the people grumbled against Moses and said, ‘Why did you bring us up from Egypt, to kill us and our children and livestock with thirst?’” states 17: 2-3.
Similar to 14:11 and 16:2-3, the Israelites
express their fear of death. To be more specific, they
suggest that Moses will be responsible for killing
them, their children, and their livestock. While they
don’t claim that they had access to ample water in
Egypt – as they did to food – they still lament not
being in Egypt any longer. Now is the moment to
gather together these three passages and unpack their
B’Shalah
9
meaning. What they possess in common is a certain
recollection of a previous state – which we generally
associate with memory – but one that does not
accord with what we would expect based on what
we know of the Israelites’ past. The proper term for
describing these passages is not memory, but
nostalgia.
I first learned about nostalgia in the summer
after my senior year of high school. Shiri has tired of
me saying this, but my senior year of high school
B’Shalah
10
was an extraordinary year – a year so unbelievable
that I dare say few have ever experienced such a
year. The culmination of fifteen years living in my
town, I felt a sense of command and enjoyed a
respect that was uncommon. Yet, it was all earned.
In all the activities I participated in, I excelled. In
student government, sports, academics, and theatre, I
experienced one success after another.
The consequence, however, of having such a
great year was that when it ended, I found myself in
B’Shalah
11
the odd group of people who would rather have
stayed in high school than gone on to college. Nearly
all high schoolers look forward to college. In spite of
the enticements of college, I sensed that my
freshman year of college would never match my
senior year of high school.
I share this so that you know my state of mind
when I picked up the novel One Hundred Years of
Solitude. The word bashert can sometimes carry an
eerie quality. This novel, written by the Latin
B’Shalah
12
American writer Gabriel Garcia Marquez spoke to
my mood and state of mind as profoundly as one can
imagine. The novel gripped me, and I spent many
afternoons dwelling with it. I anticipated it when I
put it down, and I was wary that it would soon end.
More than twenty years later, I can’t share with you
many details about the novel. It depicts a family in a
Latin American town across generations and
describes the nature of Latin American political life
with its instability and recurring revolutions and
B’Shalah
13
counter-revolutions. The narrative is punctuated by
phenomenal scenes of love and romance. I don’t
know at what point I became aware of what was its
preeminent feature, but eventually I recognized the
novel as a masterful account of nostalgia.
Nostalgia isn’t a word you use in your everyday
discourse. For certain, it’s a relationship to the past.
The key word there is “relationship.” The past is not
over. One continues to dwell in it; more importantly,
one yearns for it. Immediately, you should notice the
B’Shalah
14
paradox. To yearn for that which has happened
inverts the true nature of yearning. Yearning is
grounded in desire and points to the future. One
cannot yearn for the past; yet that is precisely what
nostalgia is.
For many years, I cherished nostalgia, nursed it,
and cultivated it in the spirit of One Hundred Years
of Solitude. At some point, though – I can’t say
exactly when – a new attitude developed within me
toward it, and I began to regard it as the “dreaded
B’Shalah
15
nostalgia.” We call this living in the past. But
nostalgia is an even more severe condition than
“living in the past.” It can effectively deny the
existence of the future. It ultimately affirms myth – a
category that denies the distinction between past,
present, and future.
When I was in Reading at my last pulpit, one of
my congregants was a Literature professor at one of
the local colleges, and he gave me an essay he had
written about another Garcia-Marquez book, No One
B’Shalah
16
Writes to the Colonel. While the action in the book
occurs, as in nearly all his books in Latin America,
the author situates it in time with reference to one
historical event in 1956 – the Suez Crisis, a war in
which Great Britain, France, and Israel joined forces
against Gamal Nasser’s Egypt. The mention of this
event betrays the political outlook of Garcia-
Marquez. Sympathetic to Nasser, Garcia-Marquez
was a Third World Marxist. His sympathy with
Nasser was continuous with his opposition to Israel.
B’Shalah
17
None of these facts, alone, however, is important.
What is important is how they provide a background
for the achievement of his artistic description of
nostalgia.
Nostalgia as a personal concern is not all that
important, but I believe that what we see in the
world is something much more disconcerting.
Nostalgia is the undercurrent of large and popular
political outlooks.
B’Shalah
18
The Torah states, “But the Israelites had
marched through the sea on dry ground, the waters
forming a wall for them on their right and on their
left” (14:29). We live in a world in which the
extremes of political discourse have made walking
in the middle “on dry ground” nearly impossible.
Diagnosing the extremes of the Right is simple.
Authoritarianism runs through the extreme right like
a blatant streak. The extreme of the Left is not
B’Shalah
19
properly discussed. What I suggest to you is that its
defining deformity is its underlying nostalgia.
To understand the reaction of the Palestinian
Authority, for example, to President Trump’s peace
plan last week, one needs to recognize how nostalgia
shapes the Palestinians’ political outlook. An idyllic
past – one that incidentally includes no Jews, or
Jews who live exclusively in a subservient position –
is at the center of their political activity. It is the
B’Shalah
20
most persistent expressions of anti-modern and anti-
liberal politics in the world today.
To conclude, the statements that bnei Yisrael
makes to Moses are expressions of nostalgia. The
Torah shows us these expressions because our
human nature makes us prone to this disposition.
Clearly, the Torah teaches against nostalgia.
Nostalgia continues to be a powerful force in the
political world, giving shape to and narrating the
B’Shalah
21
postures many people adopt. The very end of the
parsha presents us with a counterpoint to nostalgia:
“Then the LORD said to Moses, ‘Inscribe this in a document as a reminder, and read it aloud to Joshua: I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven!’” (17:14).
The Hebrew word for “reminder” is זכרון whose root
is zion-caf-reish. This root word will be
indispensable in shaping the outlook of bnei Yisrael.
It allows us to properly regard the past – without
collapsing into myth – for the sake of the future.
May our future continue to be bright.
B’Shalah
22
top related